In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 934
Online now 492 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
For Penn State or Paterno? I have no problem with Paterno's lawsuit. I don't think PSU should get involved with it.
I don't think PS should have rolled over and signed anything without Due Proces, plain and simple. Not sure why u would?
How is this interesting? Gene Marsh said this days after the sanctions came down. PSU had no choice at all. NCAA has absolute power. How many lawsuits need to be thrown out before you all see this?
“We’re doing things we couldn’t imagine,” says safety Stephen Obeng-Agyapong. “But we’re doing them together.”
I didn't say that.
Due process? Wtf does that have to do with anything? PSU has no right to due process under the NCAA, and we even found out that their own enforcement guidelines can be bypassed using their executive committee. Their bylaws essentially give them absolute authority over their members.
Wake up. The NCAA and its politician leadership is the enemy, not anyone else.
Actually, according to the federal judge in the Corbett case that said what the NCAA did was illegal, we do have a right to due process...trouble was it couldn't have been fought by the antitrust suit or the state. Bottom line....we don't sign that consent decree, NCAA has to do their own investigation and give us due process.....that much is known. Signing the consent decree allowed them to skip all of that.
This post was edited by PSU12 10 months ago
You have a link to those comments from Kane? I certainly haven't seen that.
More from the decision:
"In another forum the complaint's appeal to equity and common sense may win the day, but in the antitrust world these arguments fail to advance the ball. Plaintiff's complaint fails on all prongs: it fails to allege commercial
activity subject to the Sherman Act; it fails to allege that Defendant's activity constituted a
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; and, it fails to allege that Plaintiff suffered an antitrust
Pulled this from the Corbett thread about the dismissal. Unfortunately the judge did not state that the NCAA did anything illegal. She stated that in another forum the states argument might hold water.
I stand by what I said. NCAA did nothing illegal. They are just that powerful of an organization. They acted according to their bylaws--it's just that their bylaws essentially give the executive committee the discretion to act unilaterally and circumvent their typical investigative, appeals, and punishment process.
They could have shut us down. Even if Erickson or anyone else thought they might not be able too, what are you risking? Do you take the guarantee of severe sanctions over the possibility of a permanent end to the program? Are those the dice you want to roll?
You guys sit at your computers a thousand miles away from any actual responsibility, but when you are actually in a position of leadership, the abstract becomes real and you have to make hard choices. I don't like Erickson, but not because he signed the consent decree.
I'm confused... if the Paterno suit goes to discovery/trial, does Erickson have the option not to be disposed/testify?
Yes they absolutely were:
"He (John Dietz) proceeded to tell me three remarkable things. I don’t have his exact quotes written down, but here was the highly accurate gist of what he said:
In a year or so, after the trials, you may very well be very right and everyone will be thanking you for what you have done, but right now it is too early and we have to do what we have to do.
At that time I can assure you that the university will do right by Joe Paterno.
We needed someone like you around to fight for us in November of 2011."
I'm getting the strong impression that people in the know expect the trials will acquit the administrators and Joe, but Penn State will not say anything publicly until then. I for one, want badly to hear what Curley and Schultz were thinking regarding the 2001 incident, so I understand why the university wants to wait until they can speak.
"You can take bowl games and you can take external things from people, but you can't take a warrior's heart."
Slightly off the main topic but... We're supposed to get a new president next year. Does anyone know when Erickson is supposed to resign? Also with the transition happening in a year or less is there any word on a search for a new president?
Sure you do. Now I may be wrong, but I think I will take Dick Thornburg's word over yours. Have a nice day.
And I'll continue to watch what the legal system actually does with this issue rather than relying on a paid attorney's PR spin.
This post was edited by leftcoastlion 10 months ago
A large majority of criminal cases are resolved with guilty pleas, which by definition is a waiver of due process. Some of these pleas are, tragically, signed by innocent men. Why? To avoid exponentially greater penalties.
Erickson did have a choice. He could have fought it. However, the NCAA Board of Directors had already granted Emmert extraordinary power to resolve our case, and he was bound and determined to flex his muscles. Would you be happy with Erickson if he decided to fight it and Emmert dropped the DP on us? Sure, we could have fought it in court, but it would still be in litigation today and Penn State would be decimated regardless of the outcome. It really isn't hard to understand why he made the decision he did, and its easy to criticize someone for not putting all the chips in the middle to call a bluff when you're not responsible for those chips.
See my problem isn't that erickson rolled over. If he fought we wouldn't be playing football right now and probably for another three seasons.
The problem I have is a few BOT members, politicians, and the NCAA concocted this whole mess to cover up their incompetence or illegal activity.
Triponey revenge, emmerts powerplay, surma vendetta, those who wanted to force paterno out, corbett connections with TSM, DPW, CYS...
Lots and lots of things going on and the only people punished were sandusky and PSU. And PSU is pretty low on the at fault list.
And by the way, how are children in PA any safer today?
This post was edited by BKHPSU 10 months ago
Sorry, but the judge said no such thing, and your bottom line does not follow from her ruling. The only way we'd know that the NCAA couldn't act outside of its normal enforcement procedures is by rolling the dice, which would be bad for PSU regardless of the eventual outcome of litigation.
No, no, no. The NCAA wasn't going to cancel all of PSU's games a few weeks before the season started. Obviously not because Femmert would care about the impact to PSU, but because all of PSU's opponents, the Big Ten, etc. would have gone ballistic at the loss of a game and the corresponding income. It wasn't going to happen. And that's one reason Femmert pushed for the "de facto death penalty."
I'm not so sure, I seem to remember the big ten was all to happy to pile on with their own bs penalties right after Emmert. I didn't think the NCAA could do anything before the criminal trials were over and that wasn't the case either.
You are spot on. So many just can't get past their anger to understand this.
Yes, but the Big Ten's penalty, absurd and infuriating though it was, didn't hurt other Big Ten programs....it actually helped them. They got PSU's share of money. If the NCAA did something that was going to hurt a majority of the Big Ten teams (including the golden children) financially Delaney would have shown up at Femmert's house in the middle of the night.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports